Continuation of the conversation that started on Feb 3rd

[aspro_gti]

Damnit, you lured me in.

Ok, first, Musk: please do some basic googling about how he actually got his start, who his family is, and how he got money to invest in the first place. I'll leave it at that.

As for the rest, I'm not going to argue with you, but some difficult questions that it would benefit you to ponder:
How can you achieve equality of opportunity without also having some level of redistribution of assets? People with the means will always look for ways to help their children by providing them more opportunities that other people don't have access to.
You stated that "people can be whatever they want", but what if they can't? I assume you're a person of above average intelligence and based on what I know about you, you've likely spent most of your life around similarly smart people, but as your world expands, you will likely meet many more people of average or below average intelligence and you will be astonished by how dumb the average person actually is and rightly worried when it dawns on you that half the population is then dumber than that. No amount of hard work is going to get the guy born with an IQ of 78 to be an engineer or programmer, let alone something like a neurosurgeon. There are huge swaths of the population who quite literally do not possess the intelligence to become more educated or do better then menial labor; do they deserve to live in poverty?

I do know Musks' upbringing, doesn't make it a crime to come from a wealthy family and then multiply your wealth by creating jobs and innovations. Is it not fact that he has added to society? I will agree GTIfan about the labor laws. That stuff is horrible (the heavy metal mining in other countries is in many, if not all, cases slavery).

It's only ~15% that have IQ lower than 85 (1 standard deviation lower and everything below that) not half. IQ less than 78 is even lower than that ~7.12%

Jordan Peterson has a cool video talking about what you just mentioned. Truly a scary statistic... I don't know how to solve that one. Also note that IQ is not entirely hereditary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

"How can you achieve equality of opportunity without also having some level of redistribution of assets?"
I got lost reading about this (30 min deep, my pbnj is getting stale lol... now 1hr30 in). Simplest way I grasp equality of opportunity (not an economist/philosopher, just a 20 yr old) is being treated equally under the law. The last point, being the most important (remember - right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
I've typed a few responses and then deleted them because I'm still lost... what do you mean "redistribution of assets" get specific. Do you mean, distributing good and bad teachers to get a fair share in each school? Do you mean, distributing cops equally among all counties in a state so that people are protected the same everywhere? I think we both know that this is impossible.

Dude is rich because he started rich, gets away with violating labor and tax laws, because he's rich and is swimming in government subsidies.

Governments can prevent monopolies and ensure a living wage. Our government hasn't, which has allowed billionaires to thrive while starving out the people doing the actual work. You're cool with that, because you were born well off.

Again. You're only cool with it, because you think you're going to end up a winner. It shows an elitist attitude and lack of empathy. It's literally why revolutions happen.

Governments have not been ensuring living wages? What the hell is minimum wage for then? (I have some beliefs about minimum wage too, but I won't get into 'em for sake of wasting my fucking time today too much)

"which has allowed billionaires to thrive while starving out the people doing the actual work. You're cool with that, because you were born well off"
So I guess billionaires sit in a chair all day long and get paid to do nothing. How in the hell is this remotely close to true? Do Billionaires not take risk, manage companies, invest in businesses, and put money back into the market by spending?
And why are we grouping them all together? There's 3200 of them in the world (billionaires), each of which are different from one another. No doubt there are immoral billionaires, but I can't help to imagine that there are billionaires that busted their ass to make it to the top (if you really think there are none, then Vivek Ramaswamy is my example, $960mil net worth and entirely self made, created jobs, created life saving medicine)

I'm cool with what? the working class starving out while billionaires get rich? Where did that come from?

"You're only cool with it, because you think you're going to end up a winner. It shows an elitist attitude and lack of empathy. It's literally why revolutions happen"
Cool with what?
Winner is subjective. You're suggesting that I shouldn't want to end up a winner or put my best foot forward? Why shouldn't everyone believe they'll end up a winner in this country that's been known since it's inception for providing opportunites to make it to the top. See: American Dream

I think we've gone way off course here. Idek what we were originally arguing about. Oh right, it was about redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor to solve the problems of poverty. Which evolved into conversation about "Paying full timers more so they can earn a enough to afford shelter, healthcare,
transportation, and education." I say that if you're in a low paying job... nobodys forcing you to keep that job... so either find a better one, work more, or figure it out, it's a free country.

To go to big picture stuff here and not get so darn specific... here's how I see this:
You believe government intervention is necessary to move people from the bottom up
I don't
I don't care about you responding to any of this, but this one won't take too much of your time.

 

[aspro_gti]

I am still mad at this:
"We're currently doing #2. About half the country want #1, but you can't have billionaires and actually do this. The other half of the country wants #3, you know, the ones that love Jesus." -page 1522
Identity politics at its finest... grouping people together and making assumptions. @toothofwar was right to hold you up on this, not cool.

 

[manu97]

I do know Musks' upbringing, doesn't make it a crime to come from a wealthy family and then multiply your wealth by creating jobs and innovations. Is it not fact that he has added to society? I will agree GTIfan about the labor laws. That stuff is horrible (the heavy metal mining in other countries is in many, if not all, cases slavery).

It's only ~15% that have IQ lower than 85 (1 standard deviation lower and everything below that) not half. IQ less than 78 is even lower than that ~7.12%

Jordan Peterson has a cool video talking about what you just mentioned. Truly a scary statistic... I don't know how to solve that one. Also note that IQ is not entirely hereditary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

"How can you achieve equality of opportunity without also having some level of redistribution of assets?"
I got lost reading about this (30 min deep, my pbnj is getting stale lol... now 1hr30 in). Simplest way I grasp equality of opportunity (not an economist/philosopher, just a 20 yr old) is being treated equally under the law. The last point, being the most important (remember - right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
I've typed a few responses and then deleted them because I'm still lost... what do you mean "redistribution of assets" get specific. Do you mean, distributing good and bad teachers to get a fair share in each school? Do you mean, distributing cops equally among all counties in a state so that people are protected the same everywhere? I think we both know that this is impossible.

Governments have not been ensuring living wages? What the hell is minimum wage for then? (I have some beliefs about minimum wage too, but I won't get into 'em for sake of wasting my fucking time today too much)

"which has allowed billionaires to thrive while starving out the people doing the actual work. You're cool with that, because you were born well off"
So I guess billionaires sit in a chair all day long and get paid to do nothing. How in the hell is this remotely close to true? Do Billionaires not take risk, manage companies, invest in businesses, and put money back into the market by spending?
And why are we grouping them all together? There's 3200 of them in the world (billionaires), each of which are different from one another. No doubt there are immoral billionaires, but I can't help to imagine that there are billionaires that busted their ass to make it to the top (if you really think there are none, then Vivek Ramaswamy is my example, $960mil net worth and entirely self made, created jobs, created life saving medicine)

I'm cool with what? the working class starving out while billionaires get rich? Where did that come from?

"You're only cool with it, because you think you're going to end up a winner. It shows an elitist attitude and lack of empathy. It's literally why revolutions happen"
Cool with what?
Winner is subjective. You're suggesting that I shouldn't want to end up a winner or put my best foot forward? Why shouldn't everyone believe they'll end up a winner in this country that's been known since it's inception for providing opportunites to make it to the top. See: American Dream

I think we've gone way off course here. Idek what we were originally arguing about. Oh right, it was about redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor to solve the problems of poverty. Which evolved into conversation about "Paying full timers more so they can earn a enough to afford shelter, healthcare,
transportation, and education." I say that if you're in a low paying job... nobodys forcing you to keep that job... so either find a better one, work more, or figure it out, it's a free country.

To go to big picture stuff here and not get so darn specific... here's how I see this:
You believe government intervention is necessary to move people from the bottom up
I don't
I don't care about you responding to any of this, but this one won't take too much of your time.

Just to respond to the billionaire portion - no billionaire worked 1000 times harder than a millionaire. It’s just impossible. The only way you ever get to a billion dollars is through taking advantage of someone.

Someone, somewhere, somehow, you have taken advantage of their weakness and used it to enrich yourself. There is not a single (and I genuinely mean that) billionaire who became that ethically.

Vivek, for example, while in healthcare, doesn’t choose the treatments and therapies his companies pursue of their impactfulness to society. He chooses them on their profitability. If he could make as much money, and pay less people he would. If he could drop his cost to produce a drug, do you really think he would drop his price out of the goodness of his heart?

Capitalism, while in some regards, has some abilities to drive us forward, lacks thought and care for the most vulnerable among us. Child labor laws exist due to capitalism. Trusting capitalists to be moral when money is on the table is like trusting an untrained dog with a steak.

 

[aspro_gti]

I'm typing a response on the thread I made...
Just realized this is that thread.

"Capitalism, while in some regards, has some abilities to drive us forward, lacks thought and care for the most vulnerable among us. Child labor laws exist due to capitalism. Trusting capitalists to be moral when money is on the table is like trusting an untrained dog with a steak."

Would you say then that capitalism is survival of the fittest? Where competition/supply&demand is what determines prices in markets and wages for labor? Is this not the fairest way for an economy to run?

Who is the government to determine the price of a good/service (price ceilings and floors, minimum wages, etc)? In my opinion their job should be to maintain fair play (no taking advantage as you said and making sure monopolies aren't created)

 

[Corprin]

I do know Musks' upbringing, doesn't make it a crime to come from a wealthy family and then multiply your wealth by creating jobs and innovations. Is it not fact that he has added to society? I will agree GTIfan about the labor laws. That stuff is horrible (the heavy metal mining in other countries is in many, if not all, cases slavery).

It's only ~15% that have IQ lower than 85 (1 standard deviation lower and everything below that) not half. IQ less than 78 is even lower than that ~7.12%

Jordan Peterson has a cool video talking about what you just mentioned. Truly a scary statistic... I don't know how to solve that one. Also note that IQ is not entirely hereditary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

"How can you achieve equality of opportunity without also having some level of redistribution of assets?"
I got lost reading about this (30 min deep, my pbnj is getting stale lol... now 1hr30 in). Simplest way I grasp equality of opportunity (not an economist/philosopher, just a 20 yr old) is being treated equally under the law. The last point, being the most important (remember - right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
I've typed a few responses and then deleted them because I'm still lost... what do you mean "redistribution of assets" get specific. Do you mean, distributing good and bad teachers to get a fair share in each school? Do you mean, distributing cops equally among all counties in a state so that people are protected the same everywhere? I think we both know that this is impossible.

Governments have not been ensuring living wages? What the hell is minimum wage for then? (I have some beliefs about minimum wage too, but I won't get into 'em for sake of wasting my fucking time today too much)

"which has allowed billionaires to thrive while starving out the people doing the actual work. You're cool with that, because you were born well off"
So I guess billionaires sit in a chair all day long and get paid to do nothing. How in the hell is this remotely close to true? Do Billionaires not take risk, manage companies, invest in businesses, and put money back into the market by spending?
And why are we grouping them all together? There's 3200 of them in the world (billionaires), each of which are different from one another. No doubt there are immoral billionaires, but I can't help to imagine that there are billionaires that busted their ass to make it to the top (if you really think there are none, then Vivek Ramaswamy is my example, $960mil net worth and entirely self made, created jobs, created life saving medicine)

I'm cool with what? the working class starving out while billionaires get rich? Where did that come from?

"You're only cool with it, because you think you're going to end up a winner. It shows an elitist attitude and lack of empathy. It's literally why revolutions happen"
Cool with what?
Winner is subjective. You're suggesting that I shouldn't want to end up a winner or put my best foot forward? Why shouldn't everyone believe they'll end up a winner in this country that's been known since it's inception for providing opportunites to make it to the top. See: American Dream

I think we've gone way off course here. Idek what we were originally arguing about. Oh right, it was about redistributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor to solve the problems of poverty. Which evolved into conversation about "Paying full timers more so they can earn a enough to afford shelter, healthcare,
transportation, and education." I say that if you're in a low paying job... nobodys forcing you to keep that job... so either find a better one, work more, or figure it out, it's a free country.

To go to big picture stuff here and not get so darn specific... here's how I see this:
You believe government intervention is necessary to move people from the bottom up
I don't
I don't care about you responding to any of this, but this one won't take too much of your time.

Opening this thread with a positive reference to Jordan Peterson? Should have just added your points to the scamdemic where that dude’s rhetoric belongs.

That shall be my only contribution to this thread.

Toot toot, motherfuckers.

 

[aspro_gti]

Ah yes, the drop a comment and leave it hanging...
You don't like Jordan Peterson? Why?

 

[oddspyke]

With regard to billionaires, I don't have a problem with them existing, but the few who start with nothing are the exception, not the rule. It's easy to become a billionaire when you start with a couple hundred million (Musk, Trump and many others are in this group). Yes, they take risks and get to reap the rewards, but it's not true that anyone could take those risks. It's easy to "risk it all" when the worst case outcome is that you will be completely taken care of by your family and still live better than 99% of the population. That's not much of a risk at all. People who take on debt to educate themselves or have children and don't have rich parents can't take those same risks.

And in terms of taxes, billionaires do not pay their fair share. They aren't cheating or anything, it's a problem of our tax code. Most billionaires aren't sitting on a mountain of cash, they own assets that appreciate. If they sell them, they pay taxes, but if they borrow against the asset and just keep rolling over to new debt, they never do. Even when they die fact; on their death it becomes a step up in basis and all the taxes they would have owed on the gains just disappear. Most billionaires pay an effective tax rate in the single digits; I don't want to confiscate their wealth, I just want to close the loopholes so they pay a reasonable income tax like I do.

 

[oddspyke]

"How can you achieve equality of opportunity without also having some level of redistribution of assets?"
I got lost reading about this (30 min deep, my pbnj is getting stale lol... now 1hr30 in). Simplest way I grasp equality of opportunity (not an economist/philosopher, just a 20 yr old) is being treated equally under the law. The last point, being the most important (remember - right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
I've typed a few responses and then deleted them because I'm still lost... what do you mean "redistribution of assets" get specific. Do you mean, distributing good and bad teachers to get a fair share in each school? Do you mean, distributing cops equally among all counties in a state so that people are protected the same everywhere? I think we both know that this is impossible.

Let's focus on this part. My goal when I engage on these kinds of topics is just to encourage others to think critically and recognize that there's a lot of grey area and rarely one correct answer. Sounds like you're headed that way, which is great.

Treated equally under the law is a minimum requirement for society, but doesn't really guarantee equal opportunity, because we don't all have the same starting point. And I won't argue that we should. But there is societal benefit to setting what we'll call a minimum starting point. You pay for that with taxes (redistribution). Basic education (through 12th grade) most would agree is required and worth taking from those that have income and providing to all as an equal benefit. But how far do you take it? Public schools are not all created equal and kids don't all get the same education. At a minimum I'd like state level vs localized district funding which creates defacto private schools in high income areas and chronically under funds schools in low income areas.

Now carry that idea forward to other basic necessities - can a kid be expected to learn when they haven't had a meal in two days? How can they do homework when their electric is shut off at night and they have no light? Who helps them with it if their only parent works two jobs and doesn't get home until their bedtime?

Do we or should we, as a society, do something about that? Or fuck em, their parents made bad decision, the kids have to live with it now?

No easy answers here. But if you're open to the suggestion, I'd encourage you to set a goal of trying to understand what life is really like for others before trying to defend systems and policies that have worked well for you, but don't for others. It doesn't mean you'll change your mind on all these topics, but it does build empathy and it's critically important to understand the true cost and impact of your preferred solutions to these problems if you want to effectively defend them.

 

[toothofwar]

Ehh, this tread will get ignored. He gets butt hurt over you grouping people together in an income class, but in the same post groups everyone "who love Jesus " into a group of heathen. Grant you, I would get banned faster than Boosted if I was to try to spread what good has came from the Christian community.

 

[cb1111]

Ehh, this tread will get ignored. He gets butt hurt over you grouping people together in an income class, but in the same post groups everyone "who love Jesus " into a group of heathen. Grant you, I would get banned faster than Boosted if I was to try to spread what good has came from the Christian community.

You mean the crusades and the inquisition?

 

[toothofwar]

No I mean the food and clothing drives, community outreach programs, the AA and NA shelter programs.....

I could list for days, but you were going for low hanging fruit. Every organization has its faults, flaws, and past. People vist germany and Japan today, even though in the 30s and 40s they would slaughter the majority of us on this forum if we was to visit.




People can do good, just like people can do evil. But grouping people under one stereotypical umbrella is the most ignorant thing anyone can do.

 

[cb1111]

Damnit, I forgot the Lloyd rule emoji....

Of course, people can do good and bad things. Look at this forum, we pick on the Mk6 people all the time, but I suspect they're not all bad...

Lloyd rule

One of my Illuminati brothers sent me this. We should heed it.

 

[aspro_gti]

Treated equally under the law is a minimum requirement for society, but doesn't really guarantee equal opportunity, because we don't all have the same starting point. And I won't argue that we should. But there is societal benefit to setting what we'll call a minimum starting point. You pay for that with taxes (redistribution). Basic education (through 12th grade) most would agree is required and worth taking from those that have income and providing to all as an equal benefit. But how far do you take it? Public schools are not all created equal and kids don't all get the same education. At a minimum I'd like state level vs localized district funding which creates defacto private schools in high income areas and chronically under funds schools in low income areas.

I agree with you here... "At a minimum I'd like state level vs localized district funding which creates defacto private schools in high income areas and chronically under funds schools in low income areas." I'd rather let kids/parents pick whatever school they want to go to... if you live in a shit neighborhood and just down the road of you is a nice school in a nicer part of town, you shouldn't be barred from going there. I fear that if it goes to the state it'll probably dumb everything down rather than raising a standard.

Now carry that idea forward to other basic necessities - can a kid be expected to learn when they haven't had a meal in two days? How can they do homework when their electric is shut off at night and they have no light? Who helps them with it if their only parent works two jobs and doesn't get home until their bedtime?

Do we or should we, as a society, do something about that? Or fuck em, their parents made bad decision, the kids have to live with it now?

No easy answers here. But if you're open to the suggestion, I'd encourage you to set a goal of trying to understand what life is really like for others before trying to defend systems and policies that have worked well for you, but don't for others. It doesn't mean you'll change your mind on all these topics, but it does build empathy and it's critically important to understand the true cost and impact of your preferred solutions to these problems if you want to effectively defend them.

Your life is controlled by your parents until you're double digits at least. I think we can agree on this. You either have good parenting, or bad parenting (truly a sad thing).
"can a kid be expected to learn when they haven't had a meal in two days? How can they do homework when their electric is shut off at night and they have no light? Who helps them with it if their only parent works two jobs and doesn't get home until their bedtime?"
The idea that was talked about in the CSB thread of having prerequisites that need to be met in order to have children isn't a terrible idea in principle, but I don't think it should be forced upon people ("give us your kid because you don't have enough money raahhhh" or "you had twins but you can only financially support one, gimme that kid raaahhh").
What about moving them to a foster family that can provide these things if the parents happen to go through shit times? Or send em to another family member? I had a friend that got kicked out of his house by his dad and he lived with another classmate of mine until he graduated (I think the dad and friend made amends afterward). These are things I thought of... definitely takes more thinking and deliberation to come to a concensus, but my point is: there will always be gray zone. It's an unfortunate reality.
Now, if there is money to be redistributed to people in poverty, there also has to be a set of rules (use this money to stay afloat and get a headstart on getting a job, or use this money to get your kid to and fro school) because there is risk of this money being misused. I know darn well that there are parents out there that use child support money to get booze or to go to a casino (I think you'll catch my drift with where I'm going with this).

 

[aspro_gti]

No I mean the food and clothing drives, community outreach programs, the AA and NA shelter programs.....

I could list for days, but you were going for low hanging fruit. Every organization has its faults, flaws, and past. People vist germany and Japan today, even though in the 30s and 40s they would slaughter the majority of us on this forum if we was to visit.




People can do good, just like people can do evil. But grouping people under one stereotypical umbrella is the most ignorant thing anyone can do.

B a s e d a s f u c k.
This man is a machine.

^ That means facts machine

 

[golfdave]

Talking about IQ.....

My take based on observations......& to "simplify" a huge history/social discussion...

Through history those with power/control do want these without power/control to have any....so those with power control will do their best to prevent any "climbing" up the ladder...

Just look at the history & struggle of the translation of the Bible into simple english......"we can't have the general public understanding our powerful book, they have to learn latin"...

India has a huge number of millionaires & billionaires...& it also has a huge "poor" section of society..in fact its a whole caste system that is still being culturally enforced even in this day, with India have space programmes & nukes...its idiotic!...But those rich have power & control .....forget "rich" its the "haves" vs the "have nots"...

In the industrial revolution in England, quite a few of the industrialists did build towns, schools etc for their workers this to help educate the workforce.

Education & being encouraged to question everything, & also find out things for yourself, is the greatest leap towards a higher IQ.......However, in this day in age people are being encouraged to not question & just sit back & do bugger all & the computer/gov will provide everything for you...& many are quite happy in this situation...as it means less work for them to do, as thinking requires effort, & you might make mistakes etc....

I'm self taught, failed school as I was bored, managed to get through collage & then Uni....& then was unemployable as I was "over qualified & didn't have the minimum 3-4yrs work experience"......so did other jobs, then set up my own business....now semi-retired...

As for IQ, yes its high...been tested when I was in elementary school..